“All my life I have wondered about the possibility of life elsewhere. What would it be like? Of what would it be made?”[1]

It is easy to wonder, sitting on this cosmic shoreline and looking up into the universe, if there is any life out there whose intelligence might be similar to our own, or if there is any other complex life at all. Like Dawkins, there seem to be so many intelligent people who desire so badly for there to be life elsewhere that their science always reflects that sort of possibility. After all, if life did come about by way of mutation and natural selection, could there not be life elsewhere in the universe? How fantastical might that life be?

The fact of the matter is, talk of life elsewhere in the universe is fantastical and can be referred to only in speculation, which is not the goal of science. In mankind’s pursuit to discover life elsewhere in the universe, he has adopted the phrase, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” as his mantra for life. There is much truth in this phrase, but what surprises me most about this phrase is that most of the scientists who use it in defending their treasure hunt for alien life, have also denied the existence of a creator because there is not sufficient “scientific” or “empirical” evidence. To claim a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing in a creator seems weak at best.

Because scientific evidence, though, can be used in such a naturalistic way, I must ask why God has not been obviously discovered by all within the scientific community. After all, His creation is studied daily and His creative work discovered. Why are not all scientists believers? Upon asking this question, I discovered that the God who created the cosmos was not bound by the cosmos or a member of the cosmos.

I have created in my life. I have produced works of art. I have cooked and woodworked and written page upon page. One thing I find is always true: I am not bound by my own creation. I exist even without my creation. If my creation is observed and studied and admired in and of itself, it would be unclear that I am the artist or the chef or the author. In fact, if I do not reveal myself as the producer of whatever it is that is being observed, then its origin is unknown.

The naturalist, it seems, works to discover creation by observing creation. Thus, only creation can be known because only creation is observed. Nothing can be discovered that might exist without creation. Science cannot reveal absolutely and obviously God because God is that creator who does exist without creation and is not bound by creation. In fact, if God is going to be known as the creator by those who observe creation, He must reveal Himself as the creator. Even though He has done so, many naturalists simply ignore His words.

By ignoring God’s words, the naturalist is forced into a position to analyze the natural world as if it developed without any external guidance. Thus, theory upon theory of evolution has been posited and accepted because, at least on the surface, it explains a natural cosmos that did so exist and evolve without a creator. The scientist who has not limited his own conjectures, however, is free to consider the work of that creator: and indeed there are many.

As I sit back and consider biological evolution as Darwin described, and as I read books and watch television series on biological evolution; I am skeptical to say the least. It seems that as time marches on, more are becoming skeptical, even in the scientific community. In fact, in the newer Cosmos video series, narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, it was said that evolution, specifically evolution from a single cell to the diversity of life now on Earth, happened. That’s how things are. It was said matter-of-factly and given no defense.[2]

I remember pointing out that Sagan sites skepticism as a requirement to the gaining of naturalistic knowledge concerning the universe. Indeed, even in the Cosmos series (2014), Tyson states that humanity should “question everything”. I guess this idea applies to the gaining of knowledge in every area except when considering evolution as a viable explanation for the diversity of biological life on this planet. They expect no contention regarding this. That itself is why I am most skeptical.

As I observe the universe from this little planet called Earth, I suspect that there is such diversity that Earth is quite unique compared to all other worlds. I see the great precision and care taken in the development of biological life and in the development of ecosystems as a whole. I see living organisms so complex that if any one major organ were to be removed, the entire organism would cease to live. The necessary organs of most, if not all, organisms on the planet must have come into existence as a fully functioning machine all in one instance for any one organ to function. The same is true on the cellular level. Ecosystems are so complex that, if one necessary member of an ecosystem were to suddenly disappear, the entire ecosystem would fail to support all life. Plants must have come into existence at virtually the same time as animals because animals rely on plants for food and for oxygen. Similarly, animals must have come into existence at virtually the same time as plants because plants rely on animals for carbon dioxide. All kinds of life, it seems, should have come into existence near the same point in time.[3]

Seeing the great intricacies and complexity that exists in a cosmos that should only be deteriorating and becoming cold, causes me to recognize that there must be a great, intelligent Creator who has taken great care for the universe that He has created and guided throughout time. God can be praised for having such care in His creative work, and for the work He does in our lives!